Developing a Robust, Global Technology Transfer Process

By: Kevin Bagaline & Al Lewis Asymtek

2762 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 USA

760-431-1919 Biography Alan Lewis holds a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Missouri – Rolla.

He has been with Asymtek for 8 years and has held positions in manufacturing, product development, and application engineering. He is currently the Director of Applications Engineering and responsible for global coordination of Customer Application Laboratories for the Nordson Electronic Systems Group.

Prior to joining Asymtek, Mr. Lewis was a Member of the Technical Staff at the Aerospace Corporation. Kevin Bagline is the Global Account Manager for Asymtek, A Nordson Company.

Kevin has worked for Asymtek for 13 years and has over 20 years of experience in providing dispensing solutions to the electronics industry.

Abstract: Manufacturers today no longer have the luxury of developing a process in one region of the world, introducing the product in another, and then rolling it out to the rest of the world later. In the past, the delay could have been as much as 18 months or more.

Today’s world economy is operating at Internet speed -- instant information, “I want it now.” The pressure is on manufacturers to introduce their products almost simultaneously in all three regions of the world: Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. Mobile phones are an example of this growing trend.

This demand for a multi-site factory ramp is affecting OEM manufacturers and EMS companies and the way they operate their

businesses. These companies are challenged to create robust processes and then accurately and efficiently transfer those processes to multiple worldwide locations. Time to market is critical.

This article will explore the complexities involved with this global transfer process from the view of a manufacturer of advanced manufacturing equipment. Issues to be discussed include: process definition, common process tools, language barriers, fast resolution to epidemic failures, and copy-exactly equipment. A case history will also be explored.

Global Collaboration The goal of this article is to explore a changing world economy in which collaboration and global alliances are becoming a necessary way of doing business.

We can summarize the goal of this article with this statement from the McKinsey and Co. study from the early 1990’s:

“A new product with a five-year lifecycle which is six months late to market that is growing at 20 percent per year with a 12 percent annual price erosion can be expected to lose 33 percent of its total lifetime net profit. However, with a 50 percent development cost overrun, but on time to market, lifetime net profits are only reduced by an average of 4 percent.”

This study was completed in the 1990’s and covered a broad spectrum of companies. The impact on today’s global electronic economy is faster and more difficult to manage. From a micro view, this article will deal with one specific application that is commonly found in today’s production lines. However, from a macro view, the article explores a new vision of using collaborative engineering as a tool.

The Production Process Today’s production lines for both the OEM and EMS companies are a complex management and logistic process. Although production volumes are larger, the product life cycles continue to contract in industries like mobile phones and computers.

OEM’s have continued to transition the manufacturing of their products to EMS companies. Where R&D budgets once existed, prototype labs and extensive resources are now being replaced with a relatively flat EMS organization with experience in assembling PCB’s, but limited knowledge (and resources) in advanced technology applications such as flip chip, DCA and CSP underfill.

The smart EMS companies are realizing this technology gap and are filling it by leveraging the collective knowledge base of their suppliers by integrating them into their technology roadmap. Project complexity, time constraints, and global ramp requirements have caused internal concurrent engineering to be replaced by collaborative engineering.

Herein lies the new opportunity for EMS companies: to select equipment companies that are capable of coping with growth on now includes the following question: Is my equipment supplier a global company? Does it have in place a global account alliance model that includes both tactical and strategic planning?

Global Account Alliance Program Model (GAAP). (See Figure 5 at end of paper.)

So, what does a GAAP model look like and what value does it bring to the EMS Company? Lets look at a case study

OEM’s no longer have the luxury of ramping a product in Europe, for example, then introducing it in the Americas six months later and in Asia the year following. Product life cycles and technology demands have changes all that.

Today’s EMS companies must be prepared for ramping a new product in all three-world regions simultaneously.

This puts pressure on all steps of this process.

There is no margin for error in today’s economy. With ever-shrinking resources, EMS companies are relying on equipment companies to align with them throughout this process.

Let us look at a case study on a product ramp involving an advanced technology and the alliance created using collaborative engineering. . (See Figure 1 at end of paper.)

Process The application is an advanced technology involving epoxy underfilling. Although the equipment occupies a small area of the line (1 meter2), the process is critical because rework is not possible after curing. Most EMS companies are expert in pick and place, reflow, and printing technologies, but the new advanced technologies are now being transferred from the OEM to the EMS companies. Advanced underfilling is one of these technologies.

Since the underfill process occurs towards the end of the line and most of the value is already built into the PCB, it is important to incorporate a process that is robust and closed loop.

1. Design Early involvement of the equipment company at this stage is critical. For this process, the supplier was able to offer tools (advanced calculators, see Figure 2) to the PCB design team to determine if the PCB board scheme would work for CSP underfill. Other Items to consider at this stage are:

Keep out area. The distance from chip to chip. Can I get a needle in this area?

Will the surrounding chips pull the epoxy away from the CSP device being underfill?

What is the volume of material required?

Is there a RF shield? Am I designing a slot or hole into the shield that considers the UF pattern?

Is the hole large enough for the flow rates required to meet my production requirements?

Use this stage to tap into the collective

knowledge base and R&D team of your equipment supplier. They are seeing a larger scope of applications than you have exposure to. Solutions have already been invented.

Figure 2: Flip Chip Calculator

The key to involving the equipment supplier in the design stage is that the equipment supplier may be able to add insight to what is possible and provide information on design tradeoffs which can optimize production speed, yield, and general robustness to the production process.

2. Product Development After the initial design is completed, product development will proceed under the control of the OEM. At this stage, design changes are often implemented to address problems that arise in the initial design. The manufacturing equipment supplier can be involved in the review process if any of these changes affect the manufacturing process.

3. Prototypes and Testing At this stage, close communication is imperative. An equipment supplier with a GAAP strategy has a wealth of resources available to the EMS Company.

Regional Support CenterThis RSC is located in the world region of the customer and is responsible for the commercial, technical support and application/demonstration capability.

A RSC typically contains a Customer Applications Laboratory. A CAL is a laboratory for application demonstrations and process

development. See Figure 3.

W orld H eadquarters and R egionalSupport C enters need regular,structured com munication to supportglobal accounts.

= W orld H eadquarters

= R egional Support C enter

Figure 3

A CAL provides training tools, setting applications standards, and coordinating the activities of the Customer Application Laboratories located in the Regional Support Centers. A worldwide CAL network will have the following characteristics:

1. Structured and regular communication between CALs to coordinate the activities of global accounts.

2. The CAL should have a strategy to address the requirements of its local region.

3. Timely, local, competent support that is sensitive to the specific business culture and market.

4. Standard equipment and processes for supporting customer applications so that process developed locally can be transferred globally

5. 80% of applications can be completed locally with the balance being assisted by world headquarters with a clear escalation path.

Relationships with third-party suppliersIn the CSP underfill application, the liquid epoxy is important. A GAAP supplier has a global relationship with fluid formulators. In most instances the GAAP supplier has machines in the fluid formulators labs so that the material are formulated to work with their equipment and pumps.

Consortia & University RelationshipsThe same relationships that exist with third-party suppliers must also exist with worldwide consortia and universities. It is here where new ideas are discovered and training for tomorrow’s employee occurs. The global supplier takes this into consideration and manages these relationships by placing machines in their labs.

Change is probably the only constant the equipment industry will continue to experience. It will be important to stay focused on responsiveness, application agility, and scalability.

4. Pilot Run A GAAP supplier is sensitive to this important step. We are now at one of the most important steps of this process and a well-documented plan at this point will ensure success later on. The plan includes:

o Global team of experts that include applications, support, commercial and executive.

o Clearly defined expectations, timelines and objectives

o Open communications between the EMS, Equipment Company and OEM.

5. Multi-site Ramp The product is ready to be turned on. Careful planning at this will ensure delivery schedules are met. Key to making this happen is to have technical support and commercial management from the equipment vendor available at each site. The technical support team will be armed with process information to give knowledgeable, predictable results. This will insure:

o Smooth installation and start-up.

o Fast qualification of each new production line.

o A baseline process to use for troubleshooting.

6. Post Ramp – Service and Support A GAAP strategy provides a support organization that is proactively managing the following aspects of this step.

o Uniform, fast, effective help is expected worldwide.

o The competence and abilities in remote places must be better than what is offered in the home country of the supplier.

o A strategy must exist for fast global solutions to epidemic failures

o A clear global escalation path must exist and the EMS Company must have a copy.

o A rotating team of personnel must be available to provide product success.

o A post-ramp team of experts the specific process manages issues and trains personnel while maintaining line operations.

Technology Transfer The CSP underfill process is a complicated process that has been made simple by the advent of closed loop process control. This does not mean that continued up front diligence is not required. One of the biggest challenges for equipment companies is being able to develop a process in one world region and then seamlessly transfer that process (in a timely fashion) to other world regions. Many challenges exist and the CSP underfill process is no exception. Let us examine the individual expertise that this process requires. Components of an Underfill Dispensing Process Ramp (see Figure 4): - pattern design - pattern optimization - flow out time - shot volume - timers - heat range - pot life - accuracy required - keep out area - needle size - needle length - shields - # of CSP

Figure 4

Conclusions: - Before you choose a GAAP partner, know

your company and research your options:

1. Evaluate your companies existing systems

2. Understand the marketplace 3. Establish criteria for selection 4. Develop a metric to measure

the success of your solution 5. Take a test drive 6. Get references

And finally, 1. Choose an equipment supplier that can support global multi-site production ramps. 2. Use your equipment supplier early in product design, test, prototype and pilot run to ensure successful global mulit-site production ramp.

A changing global economy changes the arrow #5 to Multi-Site ramps.

Figure 1: Typical Production Line

11 DesignProduct Development

Prototyping / Testing Pilot Run Factory Ramp22 33 554411 Design

Product Development

Prototyping / Testing Pilot Run Factory Ramp22 33 5544

11 Design Product Development

Prototyping / Testing Pilot Run

MULTI MULTI FACTORY FACTORY

RAMPRAMP22 33 5544

The Desired Outcome – Global Collaborative Engineering Global Account Alliance Model

TIMETIME

11 Design ProductDevelopment

Prototyping /Testing

Pilot RunMULTIMULTI

FACTORYFACTORYRAMPRAMP22 33 5544

SIZE = Percentage of GAA involvement in thestrategy, rollout, execution

= World Headquarters= Regional Support Center [Americas, Europe, Asia]

= Customer Application Laboratories

TIMETIME

11 Design ProductDevelopment

Prototyping /Testing

Pilot RunMULTIMULTI

FACTORYFACTORYRAMPRAMP22 33 5544

SIZE = Percentage of GAA involvement in thestrategy, rollout, execution

= World Headquarters= Regional Support Center [Americas, Europe, Asia]

= Customer Application Laboratories

CASE HISTORY Description Let us look at an example of a scenario where an EMS/OEM can be so close to a process and/or product that they lose scope on how to proceed to the next step. This case history looks at a process involving an OEM having original manufacturing control over the product, transferring the product to the EMS company but the OEM retains the R&D end of the equation.

1. Typical 3 up PCB panel used for a mobile device. 2. Each PCB has one .4”sq. CSP on it 3. End user has been dispensing CSP underfill for several years. They are well

trained, have extensive process knowledge and very deep R&D capabilities 4. The CSP is shielded with a slot for applying the UF material through 5. The customer has developed what they believe is a robust process. The process

in this instance uses a flow rate of 20mg/s to dispense the material. This will become important later.

Process Info 1 Flow Rate Mass per pass (mgs)

# of CSP Line Length # of passes Time Per Panel

20 mg/sec 25 mgs

1 .4” 2 23 sec.

Condition 1

o Line pulse rate is increased because of single sided design, DFM and reduced components. Pulse rate has increased ~ 20%.

- So far the current equipment is not a gate and can keep up with these changes Condition 2

o Now the end user adds three (3) more CSP to each board. 12 total per panel. Desired pulse rate is 50 seconds per panel.

o RED FLAG - The existing equipment now becomes a potential gate because the flow rate identified by the customer for this process did not take into consideration additional components.

Process Info 2 Flow Rate Mass per pass (mgs)

# of CSP Line Length # of passes Time Per Panel

20 mg/sec 25 mgs 12 .4” 2 62.5 sec.

o RED FLAG – As you can see from the above data the time per panel almost triples resulting in the CSP underfill system being the gate n the line.

GAAP Collaborative Engineering Opportunity The customer at this point goes to his dispensing equipment supplier and asks for some assistance on optimizing this process. These options are considered:

1. Stay with existing equipment, add a 2nd system and feed the PCB to each system with a board shuttle.

2. Faster platform utilizing a dual lane conveyor system PROS & CONS

1. Adding existing equipment capacity was considered but it was quickly ruled out after realizing the equipment throughput capability was at its peak.

2. The dual lane system was modeled by the GAAP partner and it was determined that the throughout savings were only 20-30% based on using the current flow rate of 20mg/sec.

Condition 3 o Originally, the RF shield had a slot. The design has now been changed to a

hole. This limits even further the success of this project as considerations now have to be given to flow out time

NOTE: Remember that throughout this whole process of 6-8 months the manufacturer is limiting the dispensing company to dispensing at a flow rate of 20mg/sec. This data point is based on the work they have done in their lab and has taken into consideration, CSP design, flow out time, surrounding components, and shield design. GAAP Collaborative Engineering Opportunity

It is at this point that the equipment supplier challenged the process based on their global position of applications similar to this process. A suggestion was made that the following would yield a better result: > Higher flow rate, more moves with smaller shots sizes Justification being the speed & accuracy of a higher end platform can now keep up with the higher flow rates of the linear pump. The GAAP equipment supplier proposed the following:

o A manageable but faster flow rate of 100 mg/sec. The GAAP partner had dispensed at this rate in production conditions

o More passes - utilizing a faster XYZ platform and smaller shot sizes (mass per pass). Here is what the new model looked like

Process Info 3 Flow Rate Mass per pass (mgs)

# of CSP Line Length # of passes Time Per Panel

100 mg/sec 12 mgs 12 .4” 4 36 seconds

SUMMARY o In this instance, the OEM/EMS Company tapped into the collective knowledge

base of their equipment supplier and successfully brought the product to market on time.

o A standard machine solution was used o A standard machine solution was used with some buffer for future growth. The 36

seconds represents a 30% improvement over the 50-second goal. o The GAAP company successfully transferred this process to other sites

worldwide o The OEM/EMS companies saved valuable R&D effort by using collaborative

engineering with their GAAP partner.